Peter Sunde, The Pirate Bay Spokesperson, Details Why His Conviction Was A Farce

from the convicted-for-doing-what-now? dept

Last week, I noticed that former Pirate Bay spokesperson Peter Sunde had posted the letter that he sent to the Swedish Administration as part of his plea to be pardoned. It was written in Swedish, and I wasn't comfortable that the Google translation was accurate enough. Thankfully, however, Rick Falkvinge has posted a full translation in English. Many of the points Sunde raises came out during the trial, but the key points -- on why he didn't actually do the things he was convicted of -- were new to me, and should concern anyone who actually believes in the rule of law and an impartial judicial system.

The serious conflicts of interests of many involved in the case have been covered before. The fact that the lead prosecutor was hired by the entertainment industry while he was still prosecuting the case, remains an astounding point that should have resulted in a clear mistrial. That multiple judges had strong connections to copyright maximalist groups or even competitors to The Pirate Bay should also be of great concern. However, even if we ignore all of that, Sunde's detailed explanation for his conviction is really quite incredible. He notes that he was specifically convicted of three things... which he did not do. Remember, Peter's role was as that of a spokesperson. He did not actually work on the technology of the site at all, but the prosecution needed to show that he did -- so Peter accuses them of concocting a story about how he set up a "load balancer" for the site, because he admitted that he knew what a load balancer was. However, as Peter notes (1) he did not set up a load balancer, (2) the server in question was put there by someone unrelated to The Pirate Bay and (3) it was never connected to the internet anyway. And yet he was still convicted because of it.

Among other things, I’m supposed to have installed a computer that operated as a so-called load balancer – a computer that makes it possible to distribute the workload of big web services among different computers. It reads clear as day in the Appeals Court verdict that I’m responsible for configuring this computer. Such a computer did indeed exist in one of the racks that The Pirate Bay was located in. On the other hand, it wasn’t connected with a single wire or cable in any way. Some computers have been investigated at the National Forensic Laboratory (Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium). Some computers have been combed for details. In some cases, the prosecutor has called owners of computers to ask them if they want to press charges of electronic trespassing against Gottfrid Svartholm, as they found that he has had access to computers. Computers he has been maintaining for clients. The computer I’m supposed to have been responsible for isn’t mentioned with a single line of text, except in the seizing protocol from the raid. I cannot find the configuration I’ve been convicted of creating. The configuration I have created, beyond reasonable doubt, according to the Swedish Appeals Court. The configuration I can say with 100% certainty would have proven that this computer had never been used for The Pirate Bay. The owner had placed it in the rack by themselves just a few weeks prior to the raid.

During the Appeals Court proceedings, prosecutor Hakan Roswall confirmed my story of this, that this machine had never been used in the operations of The Pirate Bay. Therefore, my lawyer put no energy into bringing it up in his final statement. And yet, Roswall said after this, that I had been responsible for it. And in the end, I was convicted because of it. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that this computer has been in use, not for anything at all

I know that some who dislike The Pirate Bay won't care about the specifics here. They'll argue that the site itself is pure evil, and he was deservedly convicted. I think that, if you agree with the court's basic reasoning for the convictions, you might be able to make a credible case against the two actual founders of the site who ran it. But Peter wasn't one of those guys. He was just "the spokesperson," and it appears that he got railroaded here, based on a very questionable use of the law.

Of course, he admits that it's unlikely his plea will work, and he fully expects to spend some time in jail. However, as for the fine that's been levied against him, he notes that the 11 million euros he will owe is "fantasy numbers" that he knows is unpayable, meaning that he's likely to be effectively banished from Sweden, noting that "this debt is equivalent to exile, to deportation."

Separately, Peter posted a much shorter blog post, which I'm trusting the Google translation feature on -- so I warn you that accuracy may be slightly sketchy. In it, Peter notes that the prosecution has effectively admitted that he didn't actually do the stuff he was convicted of, but claims that doesn't change his responsibility. Seriously. Here's the rough automated translation:

That the work of the Court of Appeal found Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi begun in late 2005 may not have resulted in actual service until the time of the raid against TPB, does not affect the responsibility of the act for which Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi convicted.

In other words, he didn't provide the actual services he was convicted of, but that doesn't make him any less responsible for the things he didn't actually do. Swedish justice in action.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You know what else is funny? Innocent people will say the same thing. The justice system isn't infallible and they often don't get it all correct because they have to rely on third party information, testimony, and evidence which can all be skewed or fabricated if one invests the effort. Considering the cozy nature of government and moneyed interests, it's more likely that Sunde is actually telling the truth and his involvement is tangential. They just railroaded him through this to offer him up as another sacrificial lamb for the industry altar.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You wouldn't trust Honda to give you crash test safety ratings for Ford cars, you wouldn't trust Pepsi to give accurate taste test results for Coke, you wouldn't trust Soviet propaganda to tell you about America, so why would anyone trust the media, with direct ties to the MPAA and RIAA, for their information about their competitor, whom they have chosen to, instead of competing, illigalize?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hey, hurricane head! Where were you and your sleeping giant artists friends when ACTA was voted down, eh? Lot of good your sleeping giant artists friends did, or were they all giving Lowery's shoes a spitshine?

Re: Re: Re:

You might wanna read the linked letter from the article. In which, Sunde describes how a third party company was running the site ads. They apparently took half the money!

"Jim Keyzer has heard the people selling the advertising, who collected half of the money made on The Pirate Bay, and didnít once think of prosecuting them for making money off of financing this service."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Now shut the fuck up already, I know what I am talking about."

I doubt it, somehow.

Don't like it being assumed otherwise? Give people a reason to believe you. "Anonymous asshole on the internet claiming knowledge of things he refuses to back up" is not a strong position to argue from.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So AFF paid random 3rd party company 50K a month... now can you tell the class how much 3rd party company paid to TPB?
See because I am guessing that mr 3rd party company wasn't working for free and given the shady business they were in, selling ads to AFF I mean REALLY, I am guessing they took a nice cut for their efforts.

Re: Re:

Also, read the fact that they were convicted of "aiding and abetting" copyright infringement. Not of doing the actual infringing (which, by the way, no-one was charged over). They were convicted of aiding some imaginary person commit a crime, for which there were no charges brought.

Re:

Since the entire crew of TPB have been shown to be less than honest (where did all the money go?), it's pretty hard to take this guy seriously.

I've never seen Peter be accused of being anything but completely forthright. That may not be true of some of the others, but Peter not being honest is news to me. Can you show me where he was shown to be anything other than truthful?

As for "where did all the money go" can you expand? I know that some people made completely ridiculous estimates on how much money they made which proved to be false. The site appears to have never made very much money, and nearly all of it went back into, you know, running one of the most popular sites on the internet, which costs a fair bit.

Didn't he maintain for years that he had absolutely no involvement?

No. He said that he was the spokesperson, and had no technical involvement, which is the same thing he points out here. So, not sure what your accusation is, but his statements have been consistent -- and even the prosecutor seems to acknowledge that.

Re: Re:

LOL @ Pirate Mike taking the word of a convicted sociopath at face value, giving him every benefit of the doubt. Funny how you selectively turn off your critical reasoning skills. Goes well with working backwards, I suppose. At least you're consistent! Too bad you're consistently a transparent pirate-loving manipulator.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

LOL! Typical Masnickian binary thinking: Either someone agrees with all the nonsense in your post, or else they must not really believe in [insert patriotic goal]. My point was more about you believing everything this convicted says. When it's your pirate buddies, they get a free ride from the analytical part of your brain. When they are opposed to you and your pirate friends (Yaaar!!), everything gets deconstructed down to the subatomic particle level. I'm not going to read through all the filings in this guy's case to see what's going on--and neither are you. Doesn't stop you from defending this guy. You'll defend the pirates no matter what, every single time, guaranteed. You couldn't be more transparent.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

AC: "pirates blah blah"

You could have just posted one rant at 1:38, but you come back at 1:45 and say the same thing a second time with all new words. If you really believed what you were saying, once would be enough, don't you think?

I know trolling is its own reward, but forget not having read the article (which you haven't addressed) - you can't even convince YOURSELF. Either that or you're paid by the post.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I mean, honestly, Mike. I know you can see it. This post is you rushing to the defense of a convicted pirate, using a translation supplied by another well-known pirate. It's like the Piratical Triumverate of 2012: Masnick, Falkvinge, and Sunde. And yet you deny any piratical tendencies. Scary stuff. Talk about dishonest.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Painting with a populism broad brush is not going to do you any good here. You are proving our point here - by being such an asshole, you represent people we (most of the readers of techdirt) detest. If you had a digital product, I wouldn't pirate your shit - I would pirate the shit out of your competitors product to increase its popularity. And by 'I' I mean me - not Masnick, Falkvinge or Sunde.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If you had a digital product, I wouldn't pirate your shit - I would pirate the shit out of your competitors product to increase its popularity."

I'd go one better and pay for his competitors' products, as I probably do now anyway. Why do you think there guys are always anonymous? They know that if they attach their name to this crap, there will be a backlash. I know I have a long list of morons whose products I won't buy because of their publicly stated ignorance on how to deal with their customers.

Re: Re:

"I've never seen Peter be accused of being anything but completely forthright."

Yet you have to admit he spent a very long time claiming to have no involvement in the site, to be a nobody, to have made no money, etc. He continues to dodge around his involvement in the site, and still to this day pretends to be nothing more than a spokesman - yet he is unable or unwilling to identify the people who hired him, his bosses, and who he would communicate with inside "the site" to get information for release.

Re: Re: Re:

Actually... he's always said he's not a founder. It's just hard for media to say "the guy who was later joined as the face outwards" in an easy word. And he was never HIRED since noone was HIRING. During the court sessions he also said: He worked with Gottfrid and Fredrik. That was the guys. Noone was a boss, since it's not the way they worked.

These are facts, shown on video, in testimony in court, agreed with upon with all of the involved people. He might be slimy and snarky, but at least then he is constitently so.

Re: Re: Re: Vote Pirate Party

A man for all seasons

I know that some who dislike The Pirate Bay won't care about the specifics here. They'll argue that the site itself is pure evil, and he was deservedly convicted.

I think that this calls for the old Man for All Seasons quote to be dusted down again

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Re: Re: Re:

another case of the law being changed/adapted to suit prosecution of the 'crimes', even though no 'crimes' were committed. very similar in fact to what is going on now with the Mega case and with very similar threats made if the country in question didn't comply. a choice was still made though. to stand up against the threats or be gutless and cave in, with 'encouragement' of a different nature, of course. obvious which way the Swedish officials lent. not as if they were going to be on their own either. doubt if the rest of the EU would have backed off, do you?

I believe it true to say that unless they can prove that Peter Sunde was involved in the technical operation of TPB then his trial and conviction would be a farce.

I would also like to see the person who made that load balancer server come forwards when Peter cannot be convicted of its operation if someone else can prove they did it. That is easier said than done though when other people involved in the site may risk their own trial.

Well that is just one of several charges against him and we have yet to debate the rest.

Might have gotten off easy...

If the prosecutor realized that he didn't actually have to present evidence of the crime Mr. Sunde would be convicted of, he might have charged him with something worse, like murder (no victim, no problem in Sweden!). Isn't this case sort of like being accused of accessory to murder, and having the 'victim' in court to testify in your defense, but still being convicted? Way to go, Swedish court system...

One thing is for sure.

All the world-wide convictions and all the world-wide application of the Farce of Law and all the world-wide "witch-hunts" and all the world-wide "witch-burnings" of those who would dare to contemplate sharing have served to expedite the extinction of those who would dare to contemplate prosecuting those who would dare to contemplate sharing.

Re: Re: One thing is for sure.

Re: Re: Re: One thing is for sure.

To be fair, I had to read it five times to get it, myself. Something about the rambling structure of one big sentence, complete with numerous redundancies and no punctuation, just makes it a bit hard to follow.

Factual error

"The fact that the lead prosecutor was hired by the entertainment industry while he was still prosecuting the case, remains an astounding point that should have resulted in a clear mistrial."

He was a police man, interrogator and lead investigator. But I don't think he was a prosecutor (that would be HŚkan Rosvall in this case). At least he wasn't a prosecutor in the way the word is used in Sweden (prosecutors here work for the Swedish Office of Public Prosecutions).

To be fair though I think Falkvinge's translation may be slightly off here: "Jim Keyzer has heard the people selling the advertising, who collected half of the money made on The Pirate Bay, and didnít once think of prosecuting them for making money off of financing this service."

The exact word Sunde used was actually "accusing" - not "prosecuting". I don't think this small mistake should cast any doubt over the overall translation though. I'm sure Falkvinge did a good job.

Re:

In other words, he didn't provide the actual services he was convicted of, but that doesn't make him any less responsible for the things he didn't actually do. Swedish justice in action.

I'm no expert on Swedish law, but then again neither are you... maybe it's like the guy driving the getaway car being convicted for murder when the shopkeeper struggles for the robber's gun and is killed.

Re:

Except that, unlike in this case, you have proof of a crime, and a principle criminal. "The man is dead. That man killed him. This man drove him away. This man is guilty of aiding criminal activity."

This is a bit more like... "We think a crime happened. We have no evidence of that crime. We think people committed that crime, but we do not know enough to charge anyone. We think this man helped those possible people commit the maybe crime, so he is guilty of aiding criminal activity."

Re: Re: Re:

How about you, skippy? He was convicted of providing services... that he didn't provide... But he's responsible for providing the services he had no hand in. And YOU think this is RIGHT? Yeah, glad I'll never have you on a jury against me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

But of course! After all, Saddam Hussein was guilty of having all the WMD that they couldn't find, and also guilty of supporting 9/11 with his non-existent connection to Bin Laden. US 'Justice', dontcha' know?

(And yes, I know he was a scumbag guilty of some nasty stuff, but that was the Iraqi/Kurdis responsibility, not those who had built him up in the first place.)

Freedom????

the Real problem is everyone talking about an archaic concept such as freedom. THERE IS NO SUCH THING ANYMORE. not with spyware, keyloggers, CCTV, even our minds aren't safe with people everywhere telling us how to act , how to dress, how to eat, how to work. we haven't truely been free since we crawled out of the primordial ooze. we see the thin veil alluding to freedom and will never truely grasp it. EVER

Re:

The whole trial was a failure and a waste of time.

The Pirate Bay is still in operation and will continue to be so since the people they're convicting no longer run the site. They wasted their time trying to kill TPB in the courtroom. It's a hollow victory even if they serve time and pay the fines. Those morons just don't get it. They can't win against the internet. A big waste of time and taxpayer money.

Re: The whole trial was a failure and a waste of time.

IIRC they are piling fines on one of the others because they claim he has to be still running it, despite him not having anything to do with it since the court ordered it.
Mostly they are pissed off because they can't penetrate the shell company to find the next victims for their kangaroo courts.

Injustice

I have looked at all the comments here and laugh at the conservative people who condemn what they have done. Have you ever taken a look at a copy write infringement warning on a movie at the opening. It states for individual and non comercial use only. I have looked over TPB and seen no place that they have asked for revenue for any of the torrents they list. Secondly this just proves ,which someone stated the industry lost 900 billion on it,that it is not true infringement they are after but to seek to martyr someone for a large amount of capital. We should be individuals and be able to make our own decisions and not have to worry if some large multinational corporation wants to punish us for what they dont like. Our governments are supposed to be created by the people and put in place to protect us not wallow us through the mire and murk. This is what most people do not see and understand is that not only in America but world wide any free country has rights until the flow of money is subsided and it interferes with business then laws are ratified and changed so that business prevails.So to those who condemn their actions take a look into your own private lives that one day if you become a competitor to a large corperation and they dont like your practices what rights you will have then once laws are changed in their favor

Fuck America

They seriously created an operation to go raid the Pirate Bay. And threaten Sweden which had nothing to do with it. I live in America and this embarrasses me. When did America get the right to do this. Thanks for shaming me America. I actually purchase stuff I like. But if it's a company like Warner Bros. I'm going start pirating the shit out of it from now on. Fuck America fuck America fuck America I fucking hate where I live. I used to like it but then they did this and I live in shame.

"The Swedish minister of justice at the time, Thomas Bostrom was called into a meeting in the White House and was informed of the consequences of noncompliance: the United States had threatened little Sweden with ttrade sanctions if the web service wasn't shut down"

Fuck America

They seriously created an operation to go raid the Pirate Bay. And threaten Sweden which had nothing to do with it. I live in America and this embarrasses me. When did America get the right to do this. Thanks for shaming me America. I actually purchase stuff I like. But if it's a company like Warner Bros. I'm going start pirating the shit out of it from now on. Fuck America fuck America fuck America I fucking hate where I live. I used to like it but then they did this and I live in shame.

"The Swedish minister of justice at the time, Thomas Bostrom was called into a meeting in the White House and was informed of the consequences of noncompliance: the United States had threatened little Sweden with ttrade sanctions if the web service wasn't shut down"